MEXICO CITY: President Felipe Calderón of Mexico is delivering a grim message: The largest oil producer in Latin America is running out of crude.

"Our oil reserves have been consistently falling," and the decline is "severely threatening" government finances, Calderón told a nationwide television audience in an address last month at the National Palace. That is the same place where seven decades earlier Lázaro Cárdenas cemented the anti-U.S. legacy of his presidency by nationalizing the oil industry.

Mexico was the sixth-biggest producer last year, after Saudi Arabia, Russia, United States, Iran and China, down from fifth in 2005, according to the Energy Information Administration. In 1921, Mexico was No. 2.

Calderón said in his Sept. 2 address that the country held proven reserves that could last nine years. Venezuela, the second-biggest oil producer in Latin America, has reserves to keep pumping at current levels for more than a century.

The ban on private investment in its oil monopoly is depriving Mexico of the benefits of record high prices and contributing to a slowdown in economic growth. Production of crude, the top export for Mexico, has fallen 8 percent since 2004 to a seven-year low, data compiled by the government show.

Mexico is being punished for its inefficiency in the foreign exchange market. The peso fell 0.08 percent against the dollar this year, the worst performance among the 16 most-traded currencies. Goldman Sachs in New York and Credit Suisse in Zurich say that the decline will worsen.

"If the oil output situation was different, if it was stronger, if oil output was rising, not falling, we most likely would be seeing a stronger peso," said Alonso Cervera at Credit Suisse in New York.

The drop in production is hurting economic growth by reducing funds to improve highways, bridges and ports, Cervera said. Oil provides 40 percent of government revenue and the slowdown contributed to a 47 percent decline in the national budget surplus in August, according to the Finance Ministry.

The Mexican economy has grown at an average annual pace of 2.8 percent since 2002, down from 4.4 percent during the previous five-year period.

Output has dropped to a seven-year low of 3.12 million barrels a day as the state monopoly Petróleos Mexicanos fails to develop new reserves to offset dwindling production at Cantarell, the world's largest offshore field.

Crude rose as high as $90.07 a barrel in New York last week. The 50 percent price increase from a year earlier pushed up the Canadian dollar 21 percent against its U.S. counterpart, while the Brazilian real gained 19 percent and the Norwegian krone strengthened 16 percent. Canada, Brazil and Norway all export oil.

The $15.4 billion Petróleos Mexicanos investment plan this year covers only half what is needed to fully develop the country's oil and natural gas industry, said George Baker, who runs the energy research company Baker & Associates in Houston.

Pemex, as Petróleos Mexicanos is known, also needs access to foreign companies' deep-water drilling technology to increase its reserves, said Baker, who has been analyzing Mexico for three decades.

"Oil production in Mexico is declining and declining fast," said Alberto Ramos, a Latin America economist in New York with Goldman Sachs. "What is needed is a serious energy reform that would allow Pemex to partner with other companies."

The peso will weaken 2.8 percent against the dollar by March, Ramos said. The slowing U.S. economy, which weighs on Mexican exports and migrant worker remittances, is also hurting the peso, he said.

Calderón, who served as energy minister for eight months under his predecessor, Vicente Fox, has made no direct calls to end the 1938 ban on private oil ownership, said Sergio Méndez at Prudential Bank in Mexico City. Since taking office in December, the president has instead pointed out the shortcomings of the state-run industry, Méndez said.

AuGmENTor

10-24-2007, 10:07 AM

I think this is a planned thing to push us on the Amero...

simuvac

10-24-2007, 01:07 PM

Tough call.

The arguments against peak oil tend to rely on three things:

1) state declarations of oil reserves are infamously unreliable
2) the theory of abiotic oil
3) the technological magic bullet

1) is true, but could so many oil stats be "fixed around the policy"?
2) is considered bogus by the vast majority of geologists, and goes against the fundamental principles of geology
3) is possible, but who knows?

In my opinion, there are too many demonstrable cases of states that have already experienced peak oil for the entire theory to be nothing but a ploy to bring about a NA currency. I think Mexico is running low.

dMole

10-24-2007, 01:38 PM

I can't remember the title, but there is a movie about how Cuba already transitioned off an oil-based energy (due to our country's bullshit 50-year emargo that didn't do Jack to 'ol Fidel and his family).

It really caused some economic and health problems for the poor Cuban proletariat though...

I've got about 300 existing US Patents and counting that are non-oil based energy tech or efficiency boosters (most going back to the 1880s to around pre-WW2, when everything got "classified" and suppressed), but the PTB won't let that shit hit the US economy...

dMole

10-24-2007, 01:44 PM

FWIW, Isaac De Rivas invented the first automobile about 8 years before gasoline was invented- used to run on "town gas" or "water gas"= clean burning hydrogen...

AuGmENTor

10-24-2007, 02:18 PM

FWIW, Isaac De Rivas invented the first automobile about 8 years before gasoline was invented- used to run on "town gas" or "water gas"= clean burning hydrogen...Got any links for that? I'd like to know more.

dMole

10-24-2007, 02:55 PM

Water fuel researchers tend to get their garages busted up and get bullets in their head from "robberies," but I think I already know AuGgie'd be bustin' some caps of his own. Keep a lookout for Suburbans with black tinted windows and 4 "government suits" in them!

http://waterfuelmuseum.org/
(website's mainly to sell his book, but I'd call it worthwhile- you won't find many other sources for some of these articles)

http://www.knowledgepublications.com/solar_hydrogen.htm
(Roy McAlester is an AZ Engineering Professor who's been quietly driving around without gasoline for 16 years or so in his little D-50 pickup)

http://hydrogentruth.info/index.html

http://h2-pv.us/H2/PDFs_Dloaded.html

I'm personally getting pretty tired of Al Gore and his "Green" buddies telling me about the engineering particulars of why the "hydrogen economy" will never work- grrrr.... They need to go do a little more homework (on Stanley Meyer and Daniel Dingle and others).

I'm all for telling OPEC what they can do with all their messy crude though (my politics are errr- complicated, you could say).

PhilosophyGenius

10-24-2007, 06:38 PM

And you thought illegal immigration is bad now....

dMole

10-24-2007, 08:01 PM

I didn't invent the 300+ patents- I physically have the PDFs for posterity. I've given copies of my research to some.

Why re-invent the wheel? Read what's already existent first. pat2pdf.org and Gerry Vassilatos and the late Thomas Valone's books are pretty good places to start. Patents aren't the easiest reading for the non-technical though.

AuGmENTor

10-24-2007, 09:26 PM

Thats some neat shit on those links man...

dMole

10-24-2007, 09:44 PM

You're probably not as interested in building your own ammonia refrigerators as an 'ol mountain/desert creature like me- you've got lots of pretty streams in NY for that right?

I found one crazy bastard in Australia who was building a gasoline-fired refrigerator for his 6-pack (working on an oil rig where there was plenty petrol and no electricity). He was wishing for a jet-powered fridge, but some guys believe in overkill...

Hydraulic engineering, solar cooking, alcohol fuel and hydrogen production- let's get back to the 1800s technology and do our science/engineering RIGHT this time! (as in keep the greedy corporate/political/media parasites the FUCK out of our science and education system).

AuGmENTor

10-24-2007, 09:56 PM

No, I am interested in getting a few photovoltaic panles, and a SIMPLE was to seperate water into seperate components. I think just a few 400w panels (ready for shipping at Target apperantly) would be more than enough for my needs. I could livewithout electricity, but if I can have it for a few hours a night, so much the better.

AuGmENTor

10-24-2007, 10:01 PM

I should add that as far as refridgeration goes: Streams, or an earth cellar. I'm sure you know below three feet the temperature is a pretty uniform 45-48 degrees. Perfect.

dMole

10-24-2007, 11:14 PM

We've got a little bedrock problem in many of the areas that I frequent, and streams aren't all that easy to find either. Wind and solar make a lot of sense out this way though.

There's a wave generator called the "Duck Diver" designed by a TX artist who refused to sell it to suppressive "development companies". I believe that Denmark leads the world with over 80% wind/wave power generation.

That's a pretty cool video AuG. I bought that DVD a couple of years ago at an alternate energy conference that was WAY cool. I got Moray B. King to sign a couple of his ZPE books there. I was also harassed by a couple of very-creepy, New-Agey "cult" (and possibly agent?- how much do you know about Hell Ron Hubbard's naval intelligence ties?) types at that conference on 2 consecutive days...

Strangely, Hubbard/various cults tie John "Jack" Whiteside Parsons'/early NASA's, Hal Puthoff's, Russell Targ's, and Stanford Research Institute's work and the above all together somehow in a shadowy, "string-like" manner.

http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html

You might want to read about Konstantin Meyl and John Bedini- it's similar stuff.

Bedini's Page
http://www.icehouse.net/john34/

Also see the following page:

http://www.intalek.com/Index/Index.htm

That ol' boy is QUITE an interesting fellow- we compared notes a little at the conference. He presented pre- & post-experiment chemical analyses by a professional lab of some carbon HIGH VOLTAGE spark gap electrodes and some other stuff. Somehow, his "carbon" electrodes developed a ~ 1000%-10000% (10-100 times) increase in above-medical-grade, ultra-high-quality stainless steel content in the "carbon", as I recall.

I think he also had a japanese company approach him (unsolicited- hmmm...) about this process.

Also see:

Peter Lindemann, D. Sc.
http://www.free-energy.ws/

GET HIS BOOK The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity AuG. I think I've recommended it around here before. If for no other reason, the book is worth the price for the picture of E. V. Gray putting a "cold electricity"-lit standard light bulb into a jar of water. Does anyone care to repeat that with standard 60 Hz AC wall power???

Also:

http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/

http://www.rexresearch.com/
[His $13 dollar CD is WELL worth the price- it will save you that much time downloading his CONSIDERABLE webpage info. Also, he keeps slipping a 9/11T CD in with my repeat orders ;) ] He also has some exremely "rare" papers available for purchase that you won't likely find ANYWHERE else.

"Weird science, why don't people understand? Weird science..."

dMole

02-20-2008, 11:19 AM

Related thread at:

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17849

dMole

02-20-2008, 12:13 PM

For the layperson and for posterity, the key here to ZPE/radiant energy collection is in SPLITTING the atmosphere/"positive" from the "earth"/ground connection "negative." Nearly EVERY circuit in the last 120 years has been designed to waste or reject this "solar system" or "aetheric" energy- there's your "conservation of energy" and "dissipative/resistive" "laws." The "circuit" Kirchoff loop concept is actually the problem- one actually designs a dipole (or quadrupole or more) in "free energy" systems. The biggest challenge is in converting the high voltages into lower voltages compatible with our existing electrical devices.

The "splitting" is done with some BIG-ASS capacitors, resonant circuits, and spark gaps for "safety." The spark gap will "arc" and discharge at a certain HIGH VOLTAGE if properly designed, and this will depend upon atmospheric conditions (unless you're working with vacuum tubes and systems). This is the "safety" valve in the circuit, and the system will still hold a HIGH VOLTAGE charge after "discharging" at the spark gap setting, unless your "free energy" load consumes this capacitor charge.

WARNING: THIS WORK INVOLVES HIGH VOLTAGES AND SHOULD NEVER BE ATTEMPTED BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND HIGH VOLTAGE SAFETY!!!! IT COULD EASILY KILL A PERSON OR PERSONS!!!!

That said, a glass "beer bottle"/salt water capacitor will hold HELLA electrical charge, and ANY functional capacitor is capable of "simultaneous" atmospheric charging- you've been warned- capacitor safety 101.

Also see "ground radio"- antennas are a pretty wasteful, stupid idea, truth be known. This was fairly common knowledge in early radio days and is known in Central America, but we're "smarter" here in the modern U.S....

http://www.icehouse.net/john34/groundradio.html

http://borderlands.com/newstuff/research/ground-myst.htm

You may also want to look into geothermal passive solar heat-pump systems- they (and your modern refrigerator) are usually 300% or more "over-unity" systems.

Every hour, our Sun radiates much more energy to the Earth than was released in the largest hydrogen bomb blast known. The earth, oceans, lakes, ponds, etc. store this "solar" energy, even in wintertime and northern climates. Temperature difference is all that is needed to operate a Stirling Engine (which was "obsoleted" by James Watt's fuel-burning steam engine during the "Industrial Revolution".) We are still paying the consequences of that fuel-based decision today.

Properly designed radiant ZPE systems also work at nighttime, as this is a "universal" not a "solar" radiation. Of course, there are many "debunkers" that will say ZPE is all "pseudo-science" or "junk science" and they likely either don't understand it or are actively "shilling" against it for whichever agenda they are serving...

If ZPE is all "bunk," why are high-voltage capacitors stored in a shorted condition for "safety?" You can't get electricity from "nowhere" can you??? I think most were told back in junior high general science class (up through university and graduate physics if anyone is counting) that you can't use "static" electricity (or lightening either). Is anyone willing to bet their life on it and grab UNSHORTED high voltage capacitors at random???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_capacitors

"This is also why, for safety, high voltage capacitors are stored with their terminals short circuited."

AuGmENTor

02-20-2008, 08:18 PM

Well sir, I don't know about all of that, but I found it interesting that air even at -5f still contains heat that the laws of convection dictate will trade it's heat for cool. And the very AIR contains enough heat to be utilized for power generation. Good stuff. I want to know how to MAKE one of those damn things. There were actually a few. I will get myself and everyone I know off of the power grid if I can reliably generate power enough to supply a home. I think that these things are at the edge of taking off. I don't want to make someone ELSE rich getting me and mine off the grid. Got a page with a materials list and detailed instructions?

AuGmENTor

02-20-2008, 08:42 PM

Oh, and no, I know nothing about ElRon other than he is a kook who wrote a book called Battlefield Earth I really enjoyed until I found out that was pretty much his religion with all that Xenu shit.

dMole

02-22-2008, 01:14 PM

I think that these things are at the edge of taking off.
... Got a page with a materials list and detailed instructions?

I was at a "post-Carbon" movie screening and met a university engineering professor in the post-movie discussion (who either had served or does serve in an "advisory" role for the EPA- hmmm...). I had mentioned hydrogen (since there were some BLATANLY false "inconvenient" [un]thruths presented in the articles and movie). This professor quickly "steered" the conversation away from hydrogen. He later pulled me aside and told me that he would expect to see "disruptive technology" on the market within 5 years, but didn't elaborate. That was really the only thing he said (quietly to me, alone) that I thought had substance, and then he & his political wife went off to schmooze with the enviro-trendy Gore groupies.

I did borrow a DVD about how Cuba got off oil-based energy long ago (due to the ridiculous 50-year US blockade that didn't do SHIT to Fidel himself, but it hurt the Cuban proletariat plenty). The owner of that DVD had just converted a lightly-wrecked motorcycle to "zero emission" 72-volt DC electrical. He got about 400+ miles per charge with standard 12-volt lead-acid batteries. Acceleration was nearly instantaneous, too. Talk about a STEALTHY vehicle, too! The thing was almost silent! This guy also drove a Prius hybrid and was building an airplane in his garage.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814275/

I don't have any "turnkey" workable Stirling designs, but I've got a couple of books on Stirling engines. There are fairly cheap plans available online, but I'd do some online research and experimenting first. The solar stirling has recently set an engine efficiency record (at 98% or so). For a parabolic reflector, a stainless steel mixing bowl from the dollar store could work for small prototypes. You want a [preferably insulated] AIRTIGHT hose or tube connecting the hot and cold sides. Ideally, your hot and cold "cylinder(s)" would be made of heat conductive copper or aluminum tubes [insert Saddam Hussein WMD joke here].

According to the following page, "loose" is good in Stirling engines.
http://www.boydhouse.com/stirling/htmlstirlingplans/index.html

I've heard of using narrow straws (from kid's juice boxes or school lunch) to decrease bearing friction if using wooden structures in a Stirling engine. Teflon tubing would make an excellent low friction bearing. The teflon tubing could also be used very well to transfer air between the hot & cold "cylinders."

Solar Stirling is the IDEAL way to go:
http://www.stirlingengines.org.uk/sun/sola3.html

The important thing is to get good, fast heat transfer from the environmental hot and cold "sinks"- aluminum and copper tubing is good here. Low friction, thermally insulated piston(s) are good [HINT: e.g. Teflon], as is an airtight hose beween "cylinders." You could even build a workable piston out of wood with a hole saw. I've seen air transfer valves within the piston, but the external transfer hose idea is simpler, and I like it better.

Look around for environmental "waste" heat. If you live near a body of water- I'd look there first. For houses, I see the the "hot" side on a roof with the "cold" side inside the building. Alternately, have the engine "cylinders" on different sides of a wall. Summertime: outside "hot", inside "cold". Wintertime: inside "hot," outside "cold". It is temperature DIFFERENCE that is important here. Of course there are times when you'll have the same temperature both places and the Stirling won't work, but open a window or go outside and enjoy it- your energy demands SHOULD be very low at those times of year anyway.

A solar Stirling with the "cold" cylinder buried underground could work well. In the wintertime, the buried side would be the "hot" cylinder. The simplicity is beautiful, really. I'd paint the solar collector high-temp "barbeque" flat black- it both collects AND radiates heat near 99%. I'd also use a parabolic reflector, but you'd need to experiment to find the "focal" point on a warm day.

Many DC motors will work as generators if you turn them manually. For prototypes, I'd grab your voltmeter and semi-broken or "neglected" battery-powered kids' toys to see what will generate DC if given mechanical energy manually. Many Stirling engines don't have much mechanical power, but it's not like you're BUYING fuel, right? :) For working models, you might want to look for 120V alternators and inverters. Battery and/or capacitor storage is always a good idea, too (windmills and [low-efficiency] photovoltaic [PV] solar usually go the 12VDC storage/inverter way as I recall).

Some small "hobby" prototypes to learn from or experiment with:
http://www.bobblick.com/techref/projects/stirling/can/can.html

You may want to take a look at that French Bingofuels page that I posted last year (more French than English language there though). Over 100 successful PMC/GEET replications can't be a fluke IMHO. Paul Pantone was clearly a threat to someone or something, and he was "disposed of" in the "justice" system.

Note: The US military reviews all patents before a examiner sees them. The Government could take a patent away from you and classify it as secret. [Title 35, chapter 17, part 181 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/ch17.html)]

Some inventor names
http://www.theverylastpageoftheinternet.com/menu/inventors.htm
-----
A few posts back, I basically told you the secret of "Tesla" ZPE collection that has been suppressed for 60+ years, but it can be rather technical and dangerous. On the ZPE/high voltage/radiant energy/capacitor thing, here are some links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZT9s9aYn8

High voltage, capacitors, and applesauce the quick, messy way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWf-V2-kr9Q&feature=related

-----SCIENCE FAIR PROJECTS, cheap entertainment for kids and adults, and other cool stuff

Tomatoes, bananas, oranges, limes, pickles, and grapefruit should all generate electricity as well. We have never tried cantaloupes or watermelons. I would think you can get more current from the zinc and copper electrodes put directly into the juice than from the fruit, but I haven't tested this firsthand. Also bigger electrodes should give more current, and different electrode pairs will give different voltages.

Here's the "why" and a cola battery (finally, a GOOD use for that "flat" can of cola):
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~kskeldon/PubSci/exhibits/E1/ (http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/%7Ekskeldon/PubSci/exhibits/E1/)

I should add that as far as refridgeration goes: Streams, or an earth cellar. I'm sure you know below three feet the temperature is a pretty uniform 45-48 degrees. Perfect.

Here are some other "desert friendly" solar and ammonia refridgeration ideas:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/07/man_retrofits_f.php

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/still_seeking_t.php

http://www.rexresearch.com/interefr/patents.htm

We used to bury our ice chests (and beer kegs- shhhhh) in the sand under tarps when we were camping at the lake. Saved boo-koo on buying ice, especially at marina prices.

Learning where to store foods and when to open and close windows and curtains can save HUGELY on air conditioning and heating too. I spent many summer days and weekends completely "off-grid" in my youth. I did have the luxury of artesian flowing wells for good, cool water. There was also a "warm spring" (if you consider year-round 75F "warm" water nearby too).

Solar energy is actually much better for heating than for existing photovoltaic (PV) electrical generation.

http://www.green-trust.org/2000/solar/solar.htm

http://www.discoversolarenergy.com/DIY/thermal.htm

Solar cooking and water pasteurization:
http://solarcooking.org/default.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_water_disinfection

(Search for Steven Jones' solar cooking articles too)

EDIT: that thin aluminum roof flashing and aluminum foil can be used for solar reflectors too. Hell, take the tin snips to aluminum cans for that matter.

Also, aluminum metal can be used for water-to-hydrogen generation.

http://keelynet.com/energy/cornish.htm

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070515WoodallHydrogen.html

http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=5916

dMole

02-22-2008, 03:28 PM

Now, probably THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING that a person can know in survival situations: how to get good, clean, potable water out of sand, mud puddles, salty beach sand, green plants, etc. One might need to build a wire, rope, and/or wood structure to hold up the "solar still" in some applications.

http://www.desertusa.com/mag98/dec/stories/water.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still

AuGmENTor

02-23-2008, 11:53 AM

All of that other stuff is very interesting. It will take me a while to go through it all. Solar still= something I have known since I was about 7. Dad taught me many valuable survival techniches well before uncle sam did. That little hunk of info could well save your life.

PhilosophyGenius

02-23-2008, 07:10 PM

Illegal immigration would suck here even wores when they run out of oil.

YouCrazyDiamond

03-15-2008, 06:58 PM

"zero point energy" (ZPE)...is a term from quantum mechanics used to explain the weirdness of a "simple harmonic oscillator" having a non-zero (and positive) minimum energy...in other words the lowest energy configuration for, say, a molecule is that it is still vibrating.

Compare this to our "observations" at the macroscopic level where a spring (which is the macroscopic "equivalent" of the "simple harmonic oscillator") has a minimum energy configuration where it does not vibrate.

Anyway, this is really tricky business trying to understand what is happening at the quantum (microscopic) level based on our "observations" at the macroscopic level.

And to make matters even more interesting, the universe is decidedly non-linear, which means there are no such thing as "simple harmonic oscillators" in nature...they all contain a finite amount of anharmonicity.

However, the concept of the "simple harmonic oscillator" is really quite powerful since we can use this as the "basis set" and add small perturbation terms to account for the anharmonicity (non-linearity) inherent in the system being described; and this perturbation approach works quite well for both macroscopic and microscopic models that make use of such concepts as the "simple harmonic oscillator".

Anyway, any analysis of such phenomenon must also be consistent with concepts such as "the virial theorem" and the "equipartition theorem".

As for capacitors...they can "soak-up" or "leak" electrons if the terminals are not electrically tied together. The air that comes in contact with the terminals of a capacitor is made of atoms and molecules, which themselves are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons...this is the source or sink for the electrons in the capacitor.

When the terminal are not electrically connected, a discharged capacitor can "soak-up" electrons, while a charged capacitor can "leak" electrons.

After much use, capacitors can also acquire a "memory" so that even a discharged capacitor can accumlate a considerable amount of charge. This can be dangerous and so we simply electrically connect the terminals together so that this charge does not accumulate in the first place.

Does anything I've said here mean that there is nothing to the projects people like Tesla have been working on for quite some time?...absolutely not. However, the energy scale that those "ideas" (or devices) are operating at is more likely to be in the nuclear realm, especially if they are seeing odd-ball stuff related to ZPE.

One thing is for sure in this universe...there are no free rides. Energy is a conserved quantity, causality can not be violated (in spite of a heck of a lot of silliness among physicsists over the "interpretation" of quantum mechanics for the last 80 years... i.e. see the "EPR paradox"), and entropy is...well, entropy is a bitch.

It is the last one - entropy - that physicists are really bumbling around with all these decades, mostly because they don't know how to account for irreversible work at the quantum (microscopic) level.

My understanding of the Virial Thorem is that it is mostly a "steady state" time averaged beast of highest utility in classical mechanical models. Considerable information can be lost when taking "averages" in various ways, depending upon one's mathematical model. Thermodynamics is full of idealized models as I recall. Consider any sinusoidal function- it time averages to zero [ad infinitum]. Yet 50 and 60 Hz alternating current is used to do work (of questionable efficiency) worldwide.

I have alluded to the "common" or "earth" reference point [usually in a voltage context] here before. I can arbitrarily define dangerously high and unstable electrical potentials [voltages for the layperson] as "zero volts" simply by moving the "common" lead on my reference meter. I wouldn't rush right in there and start touching conductors (especially capacitors) however...

YCD's statements above are certainly consistent with those of mainstream academia (from my experience). I suspect there are some missing terms in the "potential energy" portion of the Virial Thorem formulations [and that is mostly where AuGgie and I have semi-accidentally driven this particular thread, I think]. I don't have my reference books with me at my internet connection point and I don't really like Wikipedia, but the following appears to be mostly correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virial_theorem

Waaaay down at the bottom of the page, the author(s) pull in the electromagnetic fields (as G_sub_k, W_superE, W_superM, p_sub_ik, and T_sub_ik). Of interesting note is "T is the kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) of the 'fluid', U is the random "thermal" energy of the particles." Could that be an "aetheric" fluid hidden inside there perhaps? Unfortunately, we have now moved into the realm of Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), and I'm no expert there, yet.

I and several other scientists and researchers will contend here that mainstream electrodynamics AS TAUGHT has been rather broken for the last 150 years or so. The definition of "system" AS TAUGHT in mainstream thermodynamics is also highly flawed IMHO. Causality also depends heavily upon our definition of "system" and our models, reference points, and terminology.

On to the Equipartition Theorem...
http://www.plmsc.psu.edu/~www/matsc597c-1997/systems/Lecture4/node1.html (http://www.plmsc.psu.edu/%7Ewww/matsc597c-1997/systems/Lecture4/node1.html)

I note the examples are IDEAL gases- hmmm.... Also see the last section there.

I also remember the "memory" effect being more true of chemical batteries [and also inadequately explained], not so much of capacitors per se.

I often find myself going back to square one (or zero ;) ) and verifying my reference point(s).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theorem

I find definitions 2 and 3 to be the most interesting here.

"2 : an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory) : proposition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proposition) <the theorem that the best defense is offense>
3 : stencil" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stencil)

Now the "stencil" description is an interesting paradigm- a device that "cookie cutters" negative images of itself in a pre-formulated manner. No individuality, no deviations, no variation- absolute conformity. Some people consider this consistent conformity as beautiful or "elegant" [Ed: many of those people decide our Anglo-American academic "curricula" by the way, but that's another thread]. My experience indicates that pure science usually lies very far in the other direction, however (the non-linearity and [finite?] anharmonicity YCD mentioned above).

Going back to the original meaning, "from Greek theōrēma, from theōrein to look at, from theōros spectator, from thea act of seeing [see also theater]". Hmmm, objective observation, not proposed or accepted pre-conceived notions... wouldn't Aristotle be proud? How far exactly has the meaning of "theorem" evolved in the last 2500 years? :thinkingcap:

We have come a long way since Clausius' work back in 1870. Einstein's special relativity theory and "thought experiments" have been disproven- faster than light (FTL) effects are very real- photons have been sped up, slowed down, and even stopped (at Harvard). Einstein's general relativity leaves much to be desired as well.

While we're on the subject, how does an algebraically-derived quantity speed of light 'c' with dimensions of [length/time] stay constant while [length] contracts and [time] dilates exactly? Oh yes, then there's that infinite mass problem too- do the math.

Does E really equal m*c^2? I've seen another energy formulation that throws 'c' and special relativity right out the window along with the associated problems above, but I don't have permission from the NASA scientist who came up with it to disclose it publicly, so I won't here. Now his work is simple AND elegant, and I saw him BRIEFLY disprove the 1st/2nd "Laws" of Thermodynamics at least twice with macroscopic mechanical gyroscopes. Again, we've got either spin, capacitance, spark gaps, magnets, curl, higher-dimensional "fields" or "potentials" involved with ZPE effects. I question the "foundations" of any science when they need to go back and put a "zeroth" law underneath the "first." AuGgie, how well would a house stand if built that way? Newton didn't seem to have that problem with his Laws of Motion, but I do prefer the calculus terminology of Leibnitz myself.

ZPE, entropy, and "free energy" are pretty loosely [and carelessly] defined from what I've seen. In my research, I've found ZPE defined as the energy inherent in space at 0 Kelvin (when there is theoretically NO thermal energy or vibration left). I saw no references to QM, SHO's or vibration specifically. Opinions seem to vary on whether matter is needed or this is a "universal" "vacuum" "radiant" effect with no matter needed. ZPE is claimed to be on the order of 10E35 Joules (or higher) as I recall- see the work of Nikola Tesla, T. Henry Moray, Edwin Gray, Bruce DePalma, Thomas Valone, Eric Dollard, Dr. Peter Lindemann and others here.

http://www.free-energy.ws/index.html

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/possible.html

Now are we talking about Gibbs Free Energy, environmental energy, universal "aetheric" "vacuum" radiant energy, or what? The 3rd "Law" of Thermodynamics gives us yet another defective definition of entropy [problematic in that ARE there ANY PURE crystals in existence and in that 0 Kelvin is unattainable as far as I've seen, even in the "vacuum" of deep space, due to the universal microwave background radiation (growing ever-increasingly near 3K as I recall)]. Liquid [and solid??] helium is fairly close to 0K though. I believe that the University of Helsinki reported 100 picoKelvin and MIT reported 500 picoKelvin, but I don't recall hearing of any ZPE measurements in those experiments.

http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/thermodyn/third_law.html

As to "no free rides"- ever been surfing? Ever seen the North Shore of Oahu in the wintertime? It's downright scary to me, and I'm no stranger to "adventure." Again, what AuGgie and I are talking about is tapping "off-grid," non-CORPORATE, [often environmental] energy sources, if he will allow me the bold presumption of speaking for him. Again, a re-definition of "system" and change of paradigm may be needed here. If one disagrees with my research (and that of others), very well, back "in the box", "move along, there's nothing to see here..."
-----
Some other things not adequately explained by "establishment" science:

Ahranov-Bohm Effect
Coanda Effect
Thomas Townsend Brown's electrogravitics work
[quantum] tunneling/Zener diodes
cosmic rays
neutron stars
"spontaneous" capacitor charging
electrets
diamagnetism, paramagnetism, and ferromagnetism
an actual definition of electrical charge- not 'q', NOT a description of its behavior, but a statement of WHAT IT IS and WHAT CAUSES IT- I haven't seen a satisfactory definition yet in 20+ years of studying mainstream physics...
-----
Here's an interesting quote:

" Other characteristics of this time in science [1960s] were intolerance, arrogance, and rigidity. Scientists preened and postured, became intensely political, and delegated the 'doing' of science to students. Science was becoming big science - a big governmental and corporate enterprise - demanding more resources and becoming less accountable. We now have an expensive standing army in American science, marching in place, with little creative, definable mission. Most of what passes for science is merely chauvinism - who has the largest accelerator, etc.

Now along comes Randell Mills. Without expending billions or even millions or even hundreds of thousands of US taxpayers' dollars, Dr. Mills has apparently completed Einstein's quest for a unified field theory. Dr. Mills' theory is presented in his book, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics (July 2002). This is a huge achievement for three reasons. First, the Mills Theory tidies up theoretical physics by stitching together quantum mechanics and relativity. That in itself is a major triumph. Second, and more important, the Mills Theory explains several major empirical anomalies that have vexed physicists for decades: the sun's energy balance deficit; the dark matter in space phenomena; and mountains of atomic-electron spectral data that is inconsistent with prevailing theory. Third, the Mills Theory gives rise to the possibility of an inexhaustible energy source based on phenomenology not yet recognized and accepted by the scientific community.

Remarkably, Dr. Mills has developed his theory and its energy generation application as an entrepreneur -- without largesse from the US Government, and without the benediction of the US scientific priesthood. Because his enterprise does not suffer these two impediments, it just might succeed. If so, Mills will be the next Thomas Edison. "
Shelby T. Brewer, former Assistant Secretary of Energy
(top nuclear official in the Reagan Administration)

-----

-----BEGIN MALLOVE QUOTES
Here are some more, courtesy of the late Eugene Mallove's "Open Letter":

"TO ALL PEOPLE OF THE WORLD who have open-minded curiosity, good will, good judgment, and imagination. To Scientists and Engineers, Philanthropists, Environmentalists, Energy Developers, High Technology Investors, Healthcare Professionals, Journalists, Artists, Writers, Business People, Entertainers, and Political Leaders. Whether you are Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Anarchist, and whether you may be Agnostic, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, or some other category of spirituality, this message is directed to all people of good will like you …"

“The exception tests the rule.” Or, put another way. “The exception proves that the rule is wrong.” That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
Richard P. Feynman (1963), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1965)

The progress of physics is unsystematic…The result is that physics sometimes passes on to new territory before sufficiently consolidating territory already entered; it assumes sometimes too easily that results are secure and bases further advance on them, thereby laying itself open to further possible retreat. This is easy to understand in a subject in which development of the great fundamental concepts is often slow; a new generation appears before the concept has been really salted down, and assumes in the uncritical enthusiasm of youth that everything taught in school is gospel truth and forgets the doubts and tentative gropings of the great founders in its eagerness to make applications of the concepts and pass on to the next triumph…But each new young physicist…is in danger of forgetting all the past rumination and present uncertainty, and of starting with an uncritical acceptance of the concepts in the stage of development in which he finds them.
Percy W. Bridgman (1961), Nobel Laureate in Physics (1946)

American Nobel Laureate in Physics (1988) Leon M. Lederman is no proponent of research into radical forms of new energy; one might accurately call him a “pathological skeptic” based on at least one opinion he has voiced (see The God Particle, 1993, p.122). Nonetheless, he somehow senses that a physics revolution may be upon us. He said recently, “You can smell discovery in the air…The sense of imminent revolution is very strong.” (New York Times, November 11, 2003, p.D12). He is much more accurate than he can imagine, but not at all for reasons that he would readily accept! Perhaps he may be thinking of esoteric academic physics subjects such “string theory” or “cosmic dark energy,” but certainly not practical technologies based on radical new physics. Having the intellectual problems identified by physics Nobel Laureate P. W. Bridgman in the quotation above, Lederman has not been looking at a large body of research that will indeed revolutionize the foundations of physics and give us command of fantastic new forms of energy. Too bad for Lederman; and too bad for us all that he has not been paying attention. We could use the support of people like Lederman…if they would only come to their senses, that is, examine open-mindedly the validity of experimental data that challenges their cherished theories.

In an article in Science, November 1, 2002, eighteen experts reported that they examined all the conventionally understood alternatives to fossil fuels and found them all to have “severe deficiencies” in their ability to deal with environmental problems while also being adequate to growing planetary energy needs. Physics Professor Martin Hoffert, leader of that research group, told the press that the United States would have to undertake an urgent energy research crash program, like the Manhattan atomic bomb project or the Apollo lunar missions. According to the New York Times (November 4, 2003, D1), Hoffert stated that we would need “Maybe six or seven of them [massive projects] operating simultaneously…We should be prepared to invest several hundred billion dollars in the next 10 to 15 years.” Well, I have news for these experts: The solutions to our energy problems are very close at hand, and they do require initial research and funding, but not the billions of dollars that such Establishment “experts” are accustomed to from government largesse. Rather, all that is needed perhaps are only several tens of millions of dollars to create robust prototype electric power generators based on new energy physics discoveries that have already been made. That is what this Appeal for Support is all about: to raise consciousness and funding for these radical alternative new energy sources.

Question: Do you believe that it is possible that modern science has overlooked or ignored major scientific discoveries, which—if developed into technologies— would revolutionize almost every aspect of civilization? It has!

[...]

The basic scientific direction of the path forward has already been mapped out. We need your support to go further on the path and reach our common destination: A world of abundant, clean, and safe energy from sources that have no centralized geopolitical control.

[...]

Who am I to ask anything of you on behalf of others, whether your attention for these brief moments, or for your financial and moral support? I am a scientist and an engineer with two engineering degrees from MIT (1969, 1970) and a doctorate from the Harvard University School of Public Health (1975). I have worked all my adult life as a dedicated scientist, despite my engineer’s stripes. I have always sought to learn how the cosmos really works, and I find this process to be an exciting, difficult, and unending adventure, despite those who so erroneously claim that we are approaching “The End of Science” or a “Final Theory of Everything.” Apart from my work in government-funded research at MIT and Harvard and later in corporate settings, I have also broadened my horizons by writing about science as an author and a journalist. Articles by me and about me have appeared in such venues as MIT Technology Review, The Washington Post Sunday “Outlook” section, the New York Times, Popular Science, Analog, TWA Ambassador in-flight magazine, Wired, and New Hampshire Magazine. I have appeared on many national radio programs, and for a time in the mid-1980s I was proud to have been a regular science and technology broadcaster for The Voice of America.

I am telling you something about me, not to elevate myself, but to convey to you something of my experience, sincerity, and integrity. I have written three acclaimed science books for the general public: The Quickening Universe: Cosmic Evolution and Human Destiny (1987, St. Martin’s Press), The Starflight Handbook: A Pioneer’s Guide to Interstellar Travel (1989, John Wiley & Sons, with co-author Dr. Gregory Matloff), and Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor (1991, John Wiley & Sons). The late Nobel Laureate in physics (1965) Julian Schwinger endorsed my book Fire from Ice with these words: “Eugene Mallove has produced a sorely needed, accessible overview of the cold fusion muddle. By sweeping away stubbornly held preconceptions, he bares the truth implicit in a provocative variety of experiments.” (He shared the 1965 Nobel Prize with Richard P. Feynman and Sin Itiro Tomanaga.) I am most proud of this latter book, because it began a jarring quest that led to finding out not only dramatic new truths about new accessible forms of energy in nature, but more important for me and you, the following most astonishing truth about modern “official” science: Official science is not really intent on truly expanding scientific knowledge, in particular when some very, very fundamental scientific dogmas and theories are put at risk.

Here is how one famous nuclear science professor at my alma mater MIT reacted to my request to him in 1991 to study the summary reports from two pioneering Ph.D. scientists, who had compiled seminal reviews about frontier experiments in low-energy nuclear reactions (a.k.a. “cold fusion”). One of the reviewing scientists was 34-year veteran researcher at our Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) and the other was a leader of research at India’s Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC):
“I have had fifty years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what’s possible and what’s not!…I will not look at any more evidence! It’s all junk!” —MIT Prof. Herman Feshbach, May 1991, on the telephone to Dr. Mallove

I hope you recognize that the late Professor Feshbach’s most unfortunate and ill-considered reaction was fundamentally unscientific. It reminds me of the Church leaders at the time of Galileo, who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope at the Moon or at Jupiter, because they “knew” that nothing new could be seen! Yes, many modern scientists are filled with catastrophic hubris; they have become in many ways mere “technicians of science,” and guardians of what amounts to a pernicious “Holy Writ.” Don’t bother me with the experimental evidence, my theory can tell me what is possible and what is not!

If by chance you are one of those who believe that “all is well in the house of science” and that “official science” can be counted on to behave itself and always seek the truth—even in matters of central, overarching importance to the well-being of humankind—you are sorely mistaken, and I could prove that to you with compendious documentation. (If you want to read what happened at just one institution, MIT, when a paradigm shift threatened established hot fusion research programs and “vested intellectual interests” such as those Prof. Feshbach so vehemently defended, read my 55-page report about this monumental tragedy at www.infinite-energy.com (http://www.infinite-energy.com/).) But as a first step, you should reflect on the broader history of science, which is so fraught with revolutionary leaps and paradigm shifts. These have often been made against great opposition—with revolutionary data staring an older, unaccepting generation of scientists right in the face! Read this Appeal carefully and then reconsider your opinion about who is telling the truth and who is defending falsehood about revolutionary new prospects for science and civilization.

P.S. Bonus points will be awarded to anyone who can CORRECTLY tell me how many "Maxwell's Equations" that Mr. James Clerk M. wrote back in the 1860's and in how many unknowns. There is a "special" branch of mathematics that is needed here too. Can anyone even provide me with the correct title of Mr. Maxwell's thin little book for that matter?

Also, who can tell me what Thomas Edison and Guglielmo Marconi REALLY did in which time frames?

dMole

03-27-2008, 11:02 PM

Hey AuG,

Here are a couple of PDFs for your collection, courtesy of FEMA and the DoE/NREL. I might have posted the one here before, but it is pretty good info for a "handy" type guy living in the brushland or forests to have and print out (in case of power grid failure or EMP) IMO.

I finally got 2 AA batteries into my little "woodgas" campstove and tried it out (making my camp coffee for the last several weeks). That lil' fucker is pretty damn nifty!

It only took about 2 elapsed minutes to bring 2 cups of water to a boil (approximately natural gas times from what I recall, and a damn sight quicker than an electric range).

Strangely, the best fuel I found were the old twigs that I trimmed and snapped off the old lilac bushes nearby (hardwoods like juniper/cedar, cherry, etc. should be excellent). The bigger stuff that I split with my camp axe and charcoal didn't work quite as well, but it still worked. Kinda cool to gather your own "fuel" from anywhere without using tools (but I did use a good pair of gloves), aside from the 2 AA battery thing for the fan. I'm already planning on getting a PV solar car battery charger adapted, and modifying the fan circuit to get more than 2 speeds [damn engineers anyway ;) ]. Plus, you don't have that stinking, messy liquid fuel or heavy, clanking, low-altitude (often empty) propane bottle thing.

It is a little tricky to figure out cooking on the hydrogen/carbon monoxide "woodgas" flame at first, but it burns damn hot (hotter than a propane stove, I'd say, and we have a problem getting propane to ignite above 8,000 feet out this way). I was only at about 5300 feet AMSL though when I tried it, so I can't attest to it's high-altitude performance (although these stoves are made in CO)- I'll try that out in the next few months though (I know a spot about 11,000 feet that I frequent). There is nearly NO smoke when you get it dialed in right, unless you choke out the flame (easily fixed with a match or lighter when it smokes)- this usually occured when adding fuel too quickly.

My old Mom is sold on them and wants me to order her one (she's internet-challenged). The new ones are stainless steel, but I kinda like my apparently "old school" kelly green model too.

Give it a look- now they apparently have 2 sizes.

http://www.woodgascampstove.com/

dMole

04-25-2008, 04:36 PM

Cripes, those worthless fucks appear to have taken down the verylastpageoftheinternet! Grrrr....

[This is this same "spooky" page design that I seem to keep running into online for whatever reason...]

I kinda figured you might take that tack. Steel coffee, paint, and V8/tomato juice cans ought to work well for the short term (AFTER burning out the paint or other harmful residue away in a "regular" campfire). Add a 3-5 VDC computer fan, ducting, and shroud and you're almost there. Just be sure to drill the "vent" holes small at first- apparently there are some "carburetion" issues, unless you add an air mixture valve somehow.

Tinker away my good man and good luck!

AuGmENTor

04-25-2008, 10:52 PM

I have a 400w panel I have socked away to run little things like the fan among other things. I already found pland to make one. Pretty simple really.

dMole

04-26-2008, 02:43 AM

. I already found pland to make one. Pretty simple really.

Got plans or a link for that? I think you might owe me one or two tips by now my friend. ;)

dMole

05-01-2008, 09:02 PM

http://www.butanol.com/

AuGmENTor

05-02-2008, 07:47 PM

Got plans or a link for that? I think you might owe me one or two tips by now my friend. ;)I never bookmarked it and got the blue screen of death from some grimy software. Google is your friend though. I think I found it in under five minutos. Sorry, I have the attention span of a fruit fly these days.

dMole

05-13-2008, 06:06 AM

OK- here's a link about bacterial/biomass gas and diesel, projected to cost about $0.25/gal. Think these guys have a Chevron/Rockefeller "accident" waiting in their future?